Indiana Deputy Attorney General, James Thomas Whitehead, filed the state’s response to my appellant brief on June 20, 2012. The response appears to consist of several thousand words worth of name calling, half truths, and patently false statements with very little legal support; all in the name of trying to make Dan Brewington appear to be a bad guy. One of the more prominent arguments of Deputy Attorney General, James Thomas Whitehead, was his contention that it was illegal to call a judge a child abuser. Though many of the deputy’s arguments were vague and somewhat conflicting his following statements stand clear; it is a criminal offense to falsely accuse a judge of being a child abuser and Dan Brewington accused Justice Margret Robb and the rest of the Indiana appellate justices, of being child abusers. As I was never charged with intimidating the entire Indiana Court of Appeals, it would appear the Office of the Attorney General is in agreement that all of the justices are child abusers.
Before Indiana law enforcement officials make a move to indict me on fifteen additional counts of intimidation (there are fifteen justices on the appellate court), let me explain how this post was written to help people understand not only the absurdity of the case but the dangerous nature as well. If it is illegal to call one judge a child abuser, then it is illegal to call all judges child abusers. If the State of Indiana contends I committed a crime against Judge Humphrey by calling him a child abuser then I surely committed a crime against Justice Robb unless the Office of the Attorney General, in fact, agrees with my contention.
One does not have to be a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to see what’s going on. Deputy Attorney General James Thomas Whitehead is simply using the State’s response to my brief to tattle on me. In his best fifth grade playground voice, Deputy James Thomas Whitehead is saying, “Justice Robb, Danny Brewington is calling you names.” Deputy Whitehead’s feeble attempts to weaken my character, greatly weakens his arguments concerning 1st Amendment Speech. First of all, if Deputy Whitehead is contending that I have committed a crime against all the justices of the Indiana Court of Appeals then the high court should be precluded from ruling on my case. If the Office of the Attorney General believes no crime was committed against Margret Robb and the other justices, the AG is acknowledging that it is NOT against the law to call a judge a child abuser. If Deputy Whitehead still contends it is illegal to call a judge a child abuser but no crime was committed against Margret Robb, it is in the opinion of the Office of the Indiana Attorney General that the entire Indiana Court of Appeals consists of child abusers.
When I referred to Indiana judges as “child abusers”, I obviously was referring to the emotional trauma some children experience as a result of lazy, ill-informed and/or malicious child custody judgments. The real danger existing in this case is how the Indiana Attorney General is trying to criminalize people who allege child abuse. In a world where children fall prey to sexual abuse by religious figures, coaches, teachers, law enforcement official, politicians, etc… the office of the Attorney General agrees with criminally punishing people who allege abuse on behalf of children against people of authority. I was never questioned about my allegations of child abuse or the context of my statements. Now the Attorney General’s office wants to victimize the accuser rather than investigate the accusations. In the case of former Penn State assistant coach Jerry Sandusky, who was recently convicted of 45 counts relating to child sexual abuse; it was the alleged victims who were interviewed by law enforcement to determine if a crime had been committed. Now the State of Indiana, through the Attorney General is trying to outlaw public accusations of child abuse. If Jerry Sandusky would have lived in Dearborn County, he simply could have told investigators that the accusations of child abuse were retaliatory and they would have arrested the accuser without investigating the accuser’s account of events.
Please stay tuned to the developments of this case as the argument out of the office of the Indiana Attorney General is not only an attempt to criminalize free political speech but the actions of the Attorney General may deter victims of rape and child predators from publicly reporting crimes out of fear of criminal prosecution.
Feel free to contact Dan or his family at email@example.com Please contact state officials with any concerns you may have regarding constitutional freedoms or victim’s rights.
For more information about the Deputy Attorney General’s brief please see http://www.danbrewington.blogspot.com/2012/06/indiana-attorney-generals-office-is.html